Skip to main content

View Diary: Taxing the rich: it's not about "fairness" (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You deserve to get flamed for this man of straw: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, NoMoreLies, Yasuragi, Sychotic1
    Arguing for a tax on wealth inequality would play perfectly into the hands of those on the right who say liberals have a socialist/communist agenda.  That is to say, we want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
    The diarist didn't argue for equality of outcome. Instead, he argued that we should reduce the gulf between rich and poor. Big difference.

    You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. --Bob Dylan-- -7.25, -6.21

    by Tim DeLaney on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 07:00:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nonetheless (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noble experiment, play jurist

      I must agree with the tenor of noble experiment's comment.  The approach could backfire not only against opponents, but against many who are already sympathetic to the fairness argument.

      I don't fundamentally disagree with the diarist, but I'm not one who needs convincing.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 08:05:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I didn't argue with the diarist's policy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      winsock, misslegalbeagle

      I took issue with his framing.  Republicans will brand it Communism and anyone using the diarist's arguments will be boxed into a rhetorical corner.

      My pijnt wasn't that the Diarist was arguing for Communism, my point was that the repositioning of the debate would fly close enough to it that it is a political loser.

    •  Just to be clear (0+ / 0-)

      The quote of mine you use above says that opponents will argue that we want equality of outcome.  It does not say that I think it is true, it is just that if we frame the argument the way the diarist suggests, we will have a difficult time defending that claim by our opponents.

      •  We are in agreement, but ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The diarist was talking about the right argument, not the best way to sell that argument to Joe Lunchbox..

        Two different things.

        We Kossacks have a much more sophisticated view of politics than Joe Lunchbox. To sell that view, we have to use terms that Joe understands. I know that sounds cynical, but it's political reality.

        You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. --Bob Dylan-- -7.25, -6.21

        by Tim DeLaney on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 08:54:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brooklynbadboy, Sparhawk

          First you say the diarist was talking about the right argument, rather than the way to frame it in order to sell it.

          Then you say to sell it , we have to use the terms that Joe Lunchbox understands.

          I interpreted this diary as saying "fairness" is a bad way to sell it and "less inequality" is a good way to sell it.  And then the diarist goes on to give a long (but good) argument as to why reduced inequality is good.

          My point is that while a Democrat is spending 1000 words to explain that, his Republican opponent will just say "Communist" and the debate will be lost.  For, in reality, any argument in this country that is framed around changing results rather than opportunities is always attacked that way.  And the attacker always wins, because things that can be labeled Communism or Socialism or anything that even smells a whiff like it are DOA in America.

          Democrats get government programs done by labeling them as something other than Socialism, not by wrapping policies in Socialist arguments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site